Home / MedLaw News / Parent has solo suit for child’s medical bills

Parent has solo suit for child’s medical bills

MedBill_MAINA mother can sue a doctor for her son’s medical expenses arising from the doctor’s alleged negli­gence, even though the son has not filed his own suit against the doctor, a Norfolk Circuit Court has ruled.

The defendant pe­diatrician said a Vir­ginia statute, Virgin­ia Code § 8.01-36(A), barred the mother’s suit for medical ex­penses and loss of services because there was no personal inju­ry action pending on behalf of the son. The defendants also said the father, who poten­tially had a separate claim for expenses, had to be joined in the action as well.

Not so, said the circuit court. A parent has a separate common law right to sue for a child’s medical expenses, and the Virginia General Assembly has not abrogated that right, said Norfolk Circuit Judge Mary Jane Hall. The mother could proceed alone, with­out joining either the child or his father.

A parent may file a separate action to cover medical expenses while a child’s treat­ment is ongoing. A child’s medical situation may still be developing, according to Virgin­ia Beach lawyer Stephen Swain, who repre­sented the mother.

“We wanted to get the best evidence to present about the child’s lifelong medical expenses,” Swain said. If the court had ad­opted the defendants’ position, the mother’s cause of action “would have been completely obliterated,” he said.

Separate suit

Plaintiff Martha Pancho alleged that the defendants, Dr. Robert A. Johnson and his pediatric practice, failed to take appropriate action to treat her son for elevated bilirubin levels during an appointment on May 23, 2008. She alleged her son suffered severe physical and mental injuries.

Section (A) of Code § 8.01-36 says that where an infant plaintiff has a personal injury suit pending against tortfeasors, a parent or guardian who is entitled to re­cover medical expenses may sue the tort­feasors for such expenses “either in the action filed in behalf of the infant or in a separate action.”

Claims by parents frequently are bundled with an infant plaintiff’s claim for injuries, just as a matter of efficiency – “one filing fee, one service of process, one set of discovery” requests, said Virginia Beach lawyer Rod­ney S. Dillman, who represented the defen­dants.

If the parent’s claim is made by separate action, “both cases shall be tried together at the same time as parts of the same transac­tion,” the statute says. The defendants read Section (A) as a prohibition against a sepa­rate suit by the mother.

The judge disagreed, saying that under Virginia law, a wrongful injury to an infant “creates two rights of action: one on behalf of the infant to recover for personal injury, and one on the part of the parent” for loss of the infant’s services and necessary expenses incurred to treat the infant.

The mother’s right of recovery is ground­ed in the common law, and only clear au­thority that the General Assembly intended to change the common law would allow the court to accept the defendants’ interpreta­tion, Hall reasoned.

“The Court has not located any authority indicating that a parent could only assert this right of action under the common law when a personal injury action on behalf of the minor was pending,” Hall wrote.

Although she found the defendant’s inter­pretation of the statute “supportable,” the judge said the statute as a whole did “not abridge the long-recognized common law right of the parent.”

She pointed to Keene v. Yates, a 2000 case from Abingdon federal court, saying that the Virginia statute did not require a personal injury action by the infant “as a precondition to the parents’ right of action for medical ex­penses.”

Separate suit deadlines

Hall also pointed out possible complica­tions from the fact that a parent’s claim for medical expenses and an injured child’s per­sonal injury claim are governed by different statutes of limitations: The parent has five years to sue, while a child injured before age 8 may sue any time before the child’s 10th birthday.

Hall also denied the defendants’ alter­native motion to join the child and his fa­ther in the mother’s action. The defense argued the child should be joined because Section (B) of the statute provides that both the parent’s and child’s actions are governed by a single medical malpractice cap under Va. Code § 8.01-581.15, and the child’s claim for damages could be exhausted by the mother’s claim for ex­penses.

The judge said the court could not just assume either the father or child wished to sue, and then order that they be joined. As well, the father’s claim for medical ex­penses likely was time-barred under Va. Code § 8.01-243(B).

Lawyers defending a parent’s separate action for medical expenses may want to take another look at the Keene case, re­lied on by the Norfolk Circuit Court, ac­cording to Dillman.

Dillman said the defense “respectfully disagreed” that Keene was the final word. That decision is distinguishable, he said, as that case involved a pending compan­ion case for wrongful death.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *